@ CTstump

Hey CT,
Without seeing what someone is actually doing, or has 32 unnecessary voices running in the background, or any other unknown, it's all a lot of sailboat fuel.

Logical comparisons among users isn't a bad thing to do. It's the right thing to finding if your immediate concerns are truly an issue.

That's all I have to say

Lokeyfly wrote@ CTstump

Hey CT,
Without seeing what someone is actually doing, or has 32 unnecessary voices running in the background, or any other unknown, it's all a lot of sailboat fuel.

Logical comparisons among users isn't a bad thing to do. It's the right thing to finding if your immediate concerns are truly an issue.

That's all I have to say

Fair enough but whatever method is used scientific or not these "CPU Hog" threads are going to be around a while I'm afraid.

I agree buddy.

You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink it.


Mine (and evidently, a whole slew of others) works.

Of course these "CPU hog" threads are going to be around because it's a major issue to a lot of people. I'm running RME FF802 with buffer set to 1024 samples @44.1kHz and experience CPU spikes, pops and crackles every day.

@Lokeyfly - please stop this "scientific", who-knows-what's-running-in-the-background nonsense, do you really think people (and audio engineers in particular) are that stupid? Do you really think that everyone's studio computers are loaded with gigabytes of viruses, trojans and other useless garbage?

How many times people, including myself, posted here their findings, tests and comparisons against other DAWs? How many times it was deleted? Yet uou are always there to discredit and say your usual "scientific method" that brings absolutely nothing valuable into discussion.

There is an issue with Studio One handling multi-core CPU's whether you like it or not.

I hope you (and others) get your high CPU issues sorted wdkbeatz, and get to use S1 to its fullest like many others do.

wdkbeatz weote: please stop this "scientific", who-knows-what's-running-in-the-background nonsense, do you really think people (and audio engineers in particular) are that stupid? Do you really think that everyone's studio computers are loaded with gigabytes of viruses, trojans and other useless garbage?

Considering you said all that, and no one else, it would be a good idea to speak on the subject.

My point earlier, if you bothered to read anything was to another, not you, and that they should not use Reaper, or any other DAW as a point of reference towards CPU performance. People here have. That's too bad and misses the target.DAW's handle tasks differently. .

I have brought up issues where I am seeking improvement with S1 as well, so like many of you, I am looking forward to some leaner conditions when they arise. There's a way to help make that happen, so do whatever it is that you do, but don't brew up inaccuracies to what no one is even talking about.

Anyway, not my beef. Hope you all have any issues fixed, and get on with productivity.

Cheers.

Lokeyfly wrotethey should not use Reaper, or any other DAW as a point of reference towards CPU performance.

This is a very problematic point, from a logical / analytical perspective. In order to assess the CPU performance or other aspects of a product, the sensible thing to do would be to first outline the use cases a particular user is going to encounter while using the product, and then see which products meet those use cases best. Naturally including CPU efficiency, if that's relevant in the case. It's not a special aspect that shouldn't be compared in this manner, otherwise customers wouldn't be able to make informed choices dealing with their own needs.

So, there are realistic, serious use cases where the customer can go, "okay, I see Studio One is performing badly in this case, and it doesn't let me do these things that I'd like to do, but product X doesn't fall over in the same conditions, the audio breaks up only after I have a considerably larger project going, and this software also doesn't pose similar limitations in the areas I personally value."

If instead it was true that you really couldn't use "any other DAW as a point of reference" in these matters, that would also be true in the case of every DAW, not just Studio One as a special case. In other words, it's a stance that leads to a bunch of products that users should not compare to each other in this manner -- which is quite problematic in the logical sense.

This isn't just a case of DAWs either, it's about customers outlining their relevant use cases and comparing aspects of different products based on those needs. Maybe someone has used a product for a good while and then "whoaahhh" tries another one and notices it actually does the things they hold important much better. In such a case, you might talk down on that hypothetical someone's choice -- if it's different from what you might have chosen yourself -- but that isn't addressing the actual issue. The initial product had shortcomings in that use case, and it still has them after you've commented on it.

Nokatus wrote

Lokeyfly wrotethey should not use Reaper, or any other DAW as a point of reference towards CPU performance.

There are realistic, serious use cases where the customer can go, "okay, I see Studio One is performing badly in this case, and it doesn't let me do these things that I'd like to do, but product X doesn't fall over in the same conditions, the audio breaks up only after I have a considerably larger project going, and this software also doesn't pose similar limitations in the areas I personally value."

Well said.

There is a group of fanbois who try to deny what everyone knows (and what should be the only relevant criteria from a user's perspective): Studio One underperforms (as in "begins to run out of CPU power") vs other DAWS under the exact same load.

It is that simple.

Why or how is not really something that users are responsible for or something that users should spend lots of time investigating. It's a problem Presonus needs to address.

Lokeyfly wrote
they should not use Reaper, or any other DAW as a point of reference towards CPU performance.


Nokatus wrote: This is a very problematic point, from a logical / analytical perspective. In order to assess the CPU performance or other aspects of a product, the sensible thing to do would be to first outline the use cases a particular user is going to encounter while using the product, and then see which products meet those use cases best. Naturally including CPU efficiency, if that's relevant in the case. It's not a special aspect that shouldn't be compared in this manner, otherwise customers wouldn't be able to make informed choices dealing with their own needs.

Yes, realising up to the point where differences within progems exist. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there are extreme differences between the two DAWs (as are others). Developers have and when necessary, assess the pros and cons of what are needed changes, or accept what's worth keeping (for the time being). They determine what's the competitive edge, or budget restrictions.

Sure, users to will see up front a difference, which is fine. They want better performance. That's also understood. What users also need to do, like developers is determine what works for them. If they like one DAW, over another that does form great workflow, at SOME cost of horsepower, then that's their decision. Some may even get used to the more manual way of patching, so their workflow is based in what they're used to.

So it's a two way street. Your point well taken. Inevitably we need to have the developers look at it.

Im sure developers are weighing this further. When people speek up, thats never a bad thing. Its theyre DAW, and they care.

Any good developers invariably look if the program is demanding and where possible, weighty designs are always avoided. That's inherent on the choice of so many things. The program language, the skill in choosing the necessary algorithms, etc.

Lokeyfly wroteSome may even get used to the more manual way of patching, so their workflow is based in what they're used to.

So it's a two way street. Your point well taken.

In order to illustrate the point further, note that this ^ reply still contains rhetoric that paints the picture lopsided. It depicts the users of another product in such a manner that they are "used to" something you earlier described as inferior, purportedly resulting in a workflow that is based on the inferior design. It then explains the users' preference for that environment by using that constructed causal relationship.

In reality, the manual building of reusable track templates and routing in Reaper allow for use cases that are literally impossible to perform in Studio One as of now. Similarly, there are superb features in Studio One that can't be reproduced in Reaper in any realistic fashion. However, if the former happens to allow the very things that the user is after, it's not something one can brush aside by saying it's merely about "getting used to it" and then liking it after the fact. That sort of reasoning can be applied to any feature of any product that makes that environment special in some particular use -- and usually it doesn't quite do justice to the strong points of any given product.

For me, the things that stood out when checking out Reaper were indeed a combination of those routing possibilities, reusable manually constructed track templates of numerous VIs/effects, and dramatically good performance in large projects of that sort.

I'm finished here. Good luck.
Like CT Stump mentioned, .........

Wow I didn't realize I was stepping on a landmine when I asked my initial question! thanks everyone for your passionate responses!
I'm sticking with Logic for the time being, I'll keep checking S1 when updates are released, I want it to be my main DAW, but not just yet

robertphilpotts wroteI'm sticking with Logic for the time being, I'll keep checking S1 when updates are released, I want it to be my main DAW, but not just yet

That's probably the best approach. I do my audio tracking with SO (or Reaper) and mix/master with Harrison Mixbus. Hopefully Presonus will address these CPU problems in the future.

irvingomez wroteI do my audio tracking with SO (or Reaper) and mix/master with Harrison Mixbus. Hopefully Presonus will address these CPU problems in the future.

What I wanna know is why the S1 developers didn't address these CPU problems 5 years ago! Why does this problem even exist now? Quite shocking imo.

Something else I wanna know... why don't they just hire a coder who knows what the hell he's doing as far as CPU optimization, because clearly the current coders haven't got a clue. < no doubt that statement will offend them, but the truth does offend people. If speaking the truth is an offense, then you know this world is well-&-truly screwed. They need to get this issue fixed PRONTO! Just because I feel strongly about it, doesn't mean I'm being disrespectful.

multifederal wroteWhat I wanna know is why the S1 developers didn't address these CPU problems 5 years ago! Why does this problem even exist now? Quite shocking imo.

Something else I wanna know... why don't they just hire a coder who knows what the hell he's doing as far as CPU optimization, because clearly the current coders haven't got a clue. < no doubt that statement will offend them, but the truth does offend people. If speaking the truth is an offense, then you know this world is well-&-truly screwed. They need to get this issue fixed PRONTO! Just because I feel strongly about it, doesn't mean I'm being disrespectful.

Perhaps you should give them guidance using your vast code optimisation experience then (other than turning S1 into Reaper). I'm sure that they would be delighted for you to carry out a code review

Presonus needs to man up and own this mess. They have no one to blame but themselves! So many times I would come on this forum to get them to respond that they #1. acknowledge the problem and #2. they were going to fix it. The fanboy response to my complaining resulted in new levels of stupidity but there are some here that recognize the problem and are willing to speak out.

I really liked Studio One for it's GUI and workflow but ultimately S1's horrible CPU performance drove me to find a DAW that worked for me. I use a lot of VSTi's at low latency, 32sample buffer and having used all the major DAW's Profools, Cubendo, Logic etc. I gave Reaper a try after hearing about its great CPU usage and stability.
Reaper has a horrendous learning curve because their methodology is unlike any other Daw on the market. BUT if you use the reaper forum which is full of really great and helpful folks and use the videos available you will find yourself in the most amazing and powerful DAW environment once you set it up to serve your needs. Its a DAW that constantly exceeds my expectations.

I check in here occasionally to see if Presonus has finally realized they have a big problem. Ignoring this will eventually alienate the user base and result in loss of market share.

Sounds like its still crickets.

Larry Schaeffer wrotePresonus needs to man up and own this mess. They have no one to blame but themselves! So many times I would come on this forum to get them to respond that they #1. acknowledge the problem and #2. they were going to fix it. The fanboy response to my complaining resulted in new levels of stupidity but there are some here that recognize the problem and are willing to speak out.

I really liked Studio One for it's GUI and workflow but ultimately S1's horrible CPU performance drove me to find a DAW that worked for me. I use a lot of VSTi's at low latency, 32sample buffer and having used all the major DAW's Profools, Cubendo, Logic etc. I gave Reaper a try after hearing about its great CPU usage and stability.
Reaper has a horrendous learning curve because their methodology is unlike any other Daw on the market. BUT if you use the reaper forum which is full of really great and helpful folks and use the videos available you will find yourself in the most amazing and powerful DAW environment once you set it up to serve your needs. Its a DAW that constantly exceeds my expectations.

I check in here occasionally to see if Presonus has finally realized they have a big problem. Ignoring this will eventually alienate the user base and result in loss of market share.

Sounds like its still crickets.

Agreed, I stay on Cubase for this reason and others.(No polyphonic aftertouch for mid chokes on an e kit)
Everything you say about Reaper is true, horrendous learning curve, option anxiety, menu hell, actions list and everything else, its a hard nut to crack IMO. I use it for live tracking here BTW.

Someone please mention the "take system" in REAPER! (there is no take system) S1 has so much going in terms of workflow.

Interesting little CPU test here on my MacPro

SAME project, SAME settings 2048 buffer

1. Internal Mac Soundcard CPU= 30%
2. Steinberg MR816X CPU= 30%

Am I missing something here? Shouldn't a dedicated audio interface give you a lower CPU hit than the internal Mac sound card using a DAW???